` 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`
`WESTERNGECO LLC . 4:09-CV-01827
`PLAINTIFF . HOUSTON, TEXAS
` . MAY 14, 2010
` vs. . 9:00 A.M.
` .
`ION GEOPHYSICAL .
`CORPORATION .
`DEFENDANT .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF MARKMAN HEARING AND MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE KEITH P. ELLISON
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
`
`
`Lee K. Kaplan
`SMYSER KAPLAN & VESELKA LLP
`Bank of America Center
`700 Louisiana, Suite 2300
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE DEFENDANT:
`
`
`John M. Desmarais
`Timothy K. Gilman
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10022
`
`David L. Burgert
`Ray T. Torgerson
`Paul A. Dyson
`PORTER & HEDGES LLP
`Reliant Energy Plaza
`1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
`Houston, Texas 77002
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`1
`
`ION 1026
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 109 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 14 of 216
` 14
`
`09:23
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:24
`
`09:25
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Fugro entities. Just to be clear, it is not this list, this
`
`large list of different Fugro entities that we are
`
`concentrating on that are relevant to any more of the dispute.
`
`It is just the four Fugro Geoteam entities, and they all have
`
`overlapping managers and directors. It is ultimately form over
`
`substance to say these overlapping managers and directors can't
`
`access the documents of their sister companies.
`
`This issue about the Hague convention, when we
`
`decided to file our subpoenas from this Court, first of all, we
`
`believe these are the proper parties to subpoena. Second of
`
`all, we wanted to have a court that is familiar with the
`
`technology, a Court that is familiar with the case and familiar
`
`with any relevance issues to adjudicate the scope of the
`
`subpoena. Serving requests from the Hague Convention is a very
`
`uncertain prospect as well, taking many, many months to do.
`
`It's likely they couldn't be done in time for the trial that is
`
`scheduled in this case. We decided to subpoena the U.S.
`
`entities because we do have a good faith belief, based on our
`
`publicly-obtained information, that they do have control. They
`
`do have access to these documents. They are running jobs using
`
`these products.
`
`THE COURT: But your evidence consists of overlapping
`
`officers and directors?
`
`MR. GILMAN: Overlapping officers and directors. They
`
`are marketing themselves as a single business entity.
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 109 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 15 of 216
` 15
`
`09:25
`
`09:25
`
`09:25
`
`09:25
`
`09:26
`
`09:26
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: They hold themselves out as a single
`
`entity?
`
`MR. GILMAN: I'm sorry?
`
`THE COURT: They hold themselves out as a single
`
`entity?
`
`MR. GILMAN: Correct. They roll their financial
`
`statements into a single consolidated statement, and the
`
`particular jobs where they are cooperating together, they are
`
`operating together.
`
`THE COURT: Say the last part again.
`
`MR. GILMAN: In these particular jobs in Exhibit 79,
`
`they are working together on a day-to-day basis on particular
`
`jobs using the accused products. That seems to be the
`
`definition of control. They are running the job that's using
`
`foreign subsidiaries and foreign sister companies.
`
`THE COURT: Thank you.
`
`MR. ELSLEY: Your Honor, I will be less than a minute.
`
`We have never run a job together. AS runs the seismic
`
`equipment and bought the seismic equipment. And this job that
`
`he is referring to, again, is a future job, and the reference
`
`he is making to "we will be running the seismic job" is a
`
`reference that Statoil is making, not a reference --
`
`THE COURT: We have got a fact question though, don't
`
`we?
`
`MR. ELSLEY: Well, I would agree with counsel that we
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 109 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 16 of 216
` 16
`
`09:26
`
`09:26
`
`09:27
`
`09:27
`
`09:28
`
`09:28
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`actually don't. Because if you look at the full content of the
`
`documents that he has submitted, WesternGeco has submitted with
`
`their reply, you will see that, in fact, the documents show the
`
`operator of the vessel to be AS, and they actually just
`
`reference Inc. to be the project manager. And the project
`
`manager, as I told the Court, they are not even on the vessel.
`
`It is just a person who sits in the Houston office and will
`
`follow the job on a daily basis but does not operate the
`
`seismic equipment. The seismic crew is still employed by the
`
`Norwegian entity.
`
`Of course, this is a future job and -- so we
`
`don't even have the documents on this job yet. There would be
`
`no documents to respond to a job that relates to August of
`
`2010. That current vessel, Geo Celtic, is over in Australia
`
`now under charter to the Norwegian entity.
`
`MR. GILMAN: If there is a true factual dispute about
`
`how much control Fugro Geoteam has over this job or has over
`
`other jobs operating outside the United States, it may be
`
`appropriate to have very limited discovery on this issue, one
`
`or two depositions and an evidentiary hearing on that.
`
`We believe that the evidence we submitted is
`
`sufficient. But thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: I'm going to take this under advisement.
`
`I don't want to rule hastily. I appreciate both counsel's
`
`participation. Thank you. If you want to be excused, you may
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 109 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 45 of 216
` 45
`
`10:11
`
`10:11
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
`10:12
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`provided by Schlumberger's in-house counsel, were discussing
`
`royalty disputes related to oilfield tools. They don't claim
`
`that it has any relevance to this litigation whatsoever. In
`
`fact, they kind of skip over the whole relevance issue in their
`
`motion. They don't discuss that these oilfield tools gave rise
`
`to any products, relate to any products that are at issue here.
`
`They don't talk about any technology at issue here. In fact,
`
`they don't say that WesternGeco was involved in that. They say
`
`that Schlumberger, the parent company, was the one that worked
`
`with these three consultants.
`
`When you examine this work that they are talking
`
`about, ION will present evidence later that shows that it
`
`really was a preliminary -- what has turned into an audit plan
`
`on some damages issue. Schlumberger was, it appeared, reaching
`
`out to people saying: "We may want to hire you to help us out
`
`with this royalty dispute. Would you be willing to do it?"
`
`From what we understand from FTI Consulting is
`
`that they submitted this preliminary plan, which is what the
`
`invoice is for that is attached to the WesternGeco motion.
`
`This was just preliminary issues. They ended up not being
`
`hired. Schlumberger did not continue on with them.
`
`Schlumberger doesn't offer any evidence -- WesternGeco doesn't
`
`offer any evidence that there was a continued relationship
`
`after September 2007, any other contacts with them after
`
`September 2007. They don't even assert that is what happened.
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:09-cv-01827 Document 109 Filed in TXSD on 06/09/10 Page 64 of 216
` 64
`
`10:48
`
`10:48
`
`10:48
`
`10:48
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
` 1
`
` 2
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` 5
`
` 6
`
` 7
`
` 8
`
` 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`confined to a preferred embodiment." And that is exactly what
`
`ION is trying to do in this case.
`
`I think you will see, Your Honor, as we go
`
`throughout all the various terms, this comes up repeatedly in
`
`ION's proposed constructions.
`
`It is clearly a preferred embodiment to have the
`
`birds do both. You can have a bird that does vertical. You
`
`can have a bird that does horizontal. Or you can have a bird
`
`that does both. It would be wrong to limit the claims to only
`
`birds that do both.
`
`If we look at the claim itself, right in Claim 1,
`
`we see that. Here is an excerpt from Claim 1 from the '017
`
`patent. It says right in the text of the claim for the
`
`streamer positioning device: "Having a wing and a wing motor
`
`for changing the orientation of the wing so as to steer the
`
`streamer positioning device laterally."
`
`Here in Claim 1, it is telling you we are talking
`
`about lateral or side to side steering. If you take ION's
`
`proposed construction, they would add the word "and vertical"
`
`to this claim, so they're taking a word that's not in the claim
`
`and trying to stuff it into the definition of steering
`
`positioning device when clearly this claim is only talking
`
`about lateral steering.
`
`And then if you look further into the detailed
`
`description of the patent, you see that the patent does in
`
`M a y r a M a l o n e , C S R , R M R , C R R
`7 1 3 . 2 5 0 . 5 7 8 7
`
`6
`
`